Alwaght- Peace-seeking and flexibility to the foreign actors and talking to people with a language of coercion and arms at home; this is the hallmark of several-month performance of the new Syrian leadership led by Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) and Ahmad al-Sharaa, better known for his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani— a policy that is fully in line with a carefully crafted plan of tightening the grip on power amid destabilizing crises and the dangers ahead in the shadow of slim levels of internal and international legitimacy.
The coercive language of crackdown on the opponents and religious minorities and absolute submission to the will of the sides seeking a weak and dependent Syria, especially Israeli regime, is the behavioral and ideological character of the takfiri in seizure of power that motivates the foreign sides to turn a blind eye to bloody suppressions.
This policy has so far been followed faultlessly, to the extent that the Western camp not only raises no pro-democracy voice in the face of heinous terror and crime against the Alawite minority and also ruling of the al-Jolani without holding elections for at least the next five years, but also it rolls out red carpet to al-Jolani, a militia leader-turned-politician with a dark record of human rights.
Meanwhile, although seeing this short-time performance is enough for figuring out the degree of the dependence of the new Damascus leaders, in new significant developments, recent stances by the American officials have unveiled new aspects of relations and behind-the-scenes game between al-Jolani and Washington and, indeed, the Israeli regime.
On the one hand, in recent days, former US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford revealed secret contacts with al-Jolani during the latter's time in Idlib before fall of Damascus and that during those meetings he had realized that he was a suitable person for Washington to invest in the project to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government.
But almost simultaneous with these comments, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made surprising remarks at a Senate hearing on developments in Syria, saying: "Syria may be just weeks away from 'collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions.'" His harsh assessment during a hearing session of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations came just days after US President Donald Trump made the highly controversial decision to lift long-standing US sanctions against Syria.
A look on the recent American positions reveals that Washington is pursuing a gradual and controlled strategy known as the "boiled frog" towards the al-Jolani’s government.
What's boiled frog strategy?
This strategy is based on a famous parable: If you throw a frog into boiling water, it will jump out immediately, but if you put it in lukewarm water and gradually increase the heat, the frog will cook without even realizing it. In politics, this approach means gradually increasing pressure or changes without strong provocation or a serious reaction from the other side.
Boiled frog strategy in three steps
First step: Gradual legitimization of al-Jolani
The remarks of the former US ambassador to Syria who described al-Jolani as a proper choice for future Syria leadership is a sign of the US push to normalize al-Jolani’s face to the public opinion and international institutions. This sends a clear message that Washington, despite al-Jolani’s terrorist past, is ready to accept him within new Syrian order; A step like putting frog in a lukewarm water.
In this connection, Trump described him "a young, attractive and tough guy... with strong past."
Second step: Warning about instability
Marco Rubio's remarks in the Senate, which speak of the possibility of a new civil war and the instability of al-Jolani’s government, are indicative of the US's pressure tool. These positions could contain a message to al-Jolani that if he deviates from the lines drawn by Washington, he will not only lose support but also lose his position. This is part of the gradual increase in "temperature".
In this regard, Rubio sarcastically told lawmakers during the hearing session: "Look, the new people that are in charge there are not going to pass an FBI background check. OK. We recognize that. These are not people we know a lot about, and their history, as you said, is not one that gives us comfort... If we engage them, it may work out, it may not work out. If we do not engage them, it was guaranteed to not work out."
Third step: Enticing al-Jolani with political and economic carrot
On the opposite of threats, Trump’s statements during his trip to Saudi Arabia, praising al-Jolani and mentioning Syria sanctions lift actually a carrot shown to encourage new Syrian leader to act within the framework of the US policies. Such an approach reflects a targeted duality that is part of the same carrot-and-stick policy.
Putting these elements together, we can conclude that the US is implementing a phased strategy to control, direct, and, if necessary, sacrifice al-Jolani’s government. By gradually normalizing his image, using threatening tools in the Senate, and diplomatic enticement, Washington is trying to keep him in a dependent and controllable position. This process is designed in such a way that al-Jolani and his government structure will gradually move in Washington’s desired direction without him noticing, and if they deviate from this path, they will be suppressed with the available levers.
Implementation of this strategy has already shown its function in canalization of the home and foreign decisions of the new Syria rulers, to an extent that al-Jolani has not only taken no move to counter the recurring Israeli incursions on the Syrian soil, but also expelled the Palestinian groups from Syria as a big gift to Israel and voiced readiness to sink into normalization abyss at a time the world is outraged by the Israeli barbarism in Gaza.
Conclusion
The US is taking a "boiled frog" approach with al-Jolani, slowly normalizing his role as part of a broader strategy in West Asia to reshape the regional order without boots on the ground. Instead, Washington is leaning on pliable proxies to do the heavy lifting. Whether this gamble pays off hinges on al-Jolani’s response and also on how other key players—Turkey, Iran, and Russia—choose to intervene.
